Many people choose not to vote in an election due to the fact that their vote is not effective in influencing the outcome of an election. This system of voting within the electoral college also generally favours large states over small states, meaning that they also do not have much influence in an election turnout. This problem requires reform because not only does it underrepresent the minority opinion, there is also a possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular votes. In fact three U.S Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and George W. Bush in 2000, were elected with fewer popular votes, only winning the election because of the electoral votes they received. In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush’s 271 electoral college victory over Al Gore’s 266, prompted renewed calls for reforming the electoral college.
With the Electoral College people are “Ignoring New York, California and Texas or nearly 30% of the population”(Passage 3) People may not even get to choose who they vote for. With the electoral vote it makes states like Ohio more important than Rhode Island because it is a “swing state.” The process for the Electoral College is not even the same in some of the states because each state has it’s own rules. It also makes elections so much more complicated than it needs to be. The Electoral College takes away power from the people, and that is the foundation that this country was supposed to be built on. The Electoral College should be discontinued because it gets rid of the people’s power that they have in the nation, it makes makes it so that every vote is an important vote, and the whole Electoral College system is messed up since each state has their own rules.
The democrats have stayed with this system more so than the republicans because Nixon and Reagan buried their democrat rivals in the general elections and won by landslides so, they decided that when they have a candidate that they know will not stand up well against the rival party, that they have the ability to impact who gets nominated and possibly field a more successful candidate. If I would have been asked this question prior to this election, I probably would have said “Get rid of the superdelgates,” but now I’m not 100% sure. With a candidate like Trump, you see that he has a great voter following, more than anyone thought would ever take him seriously. Imagine if the Democratic Party had a candidate like Trump (some see Bernie Sanders as a “grassroots activist” in the Democratic Party although Bernie is not emotionally and negatively divisive). Trump may take the popular vote but, he may not get the “unpledged" delegates (Republican Party) or enough total delegates to get the nomination and for me, that would be a “pro” for the “super or “unpledged” delegate
In the beginning of Truman’s first term, the Congress had gradually started to become more and more conservative due to the increased liberalism shown by Roosevelt during his term. This became a problem for Truman due to his belief in continuing Roosevelt’s work. During Truman’s second term election, there was division in the democratic party that made it difficult for him to get reelected. During his campaigning, Truman talked against the Republican controlled congress repeatedly. This strategy proved to be effective, considering that the Republicans lost nine Senate seats and seventy-three seats in the House, leading the next congress to be a majority democrat, the complete opposite of the previous congress.
There were many undervotes in majority of the states with this election and more than one hundred million people voted out of each state and made it an extremely close election. But this was no regular election, they were voting off of who was more known than voting off of the good things that both of them can do for the United States. But the election was not based
To be clear, the two numbers do not necessarily indicate causation, and there could be several other factors attributed. However, what cannot be debated is the same Pew Research Center study found a majority (Both, Democrats and Republicans) believe money has a greater influence on politics today, and the high cost of presidential campaigns discourages good candidates. (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). The sentiment of voters is clear, big money has permeated campaigns to an unacceptable degree. To illustrate, Super PACs made $65 million in expenditures in 2010, $608 million in 2012, and $339 for the 2014 mid-term elections (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015).
As an encouragement to vote most of us have probably been told, “every vote counts” at some point in our lives. In reality, this is not true in presidential elections due to the Electoral College and what it does. The Electoral College has flaws in it that can prohibit the outcome of the election from accurately reflecting whom a majority the people of the country cast their vote for. Not only will he abolishment of the electoral college change the outcome of elections, it can change the whole campaign process and the way some people in less represented states feel about voting increasing voter turnout. Every four years in early November we have the most important election that there is in this country, the presidential election.
Voters respond when they have choices between candidates, the bigger their differences the more people are likely to go out and vote. In this type of circumstance it is highly impossible for an individual to go out and vote when as an individual we have no knowledge whatsoever over politics. This in my opinion happens to be another good reason as to why voting turnout in Texas is so low. Although it may be hard to believe there are so many individuals out there who have no common knowledge on the candidates who are running in the elections, which gives them a good reason not to go out and vote. People want to go out and vote for a candidate they have much information over and know what their capabilities are, and this is very difficult for an individual who may not even know who is running in the elections or what is going on in the political
The concept of divided government means that one political party can control the executive branch, the presidency, while another controls the legislative branch, congress. Divided government is primarily caused by voter turnout in presidential elections versus voter turnout in non-presidential elections. Presidential elections have a higher turnout of voters who vote for a single party while non-presidential elections have a significantly low voter turnout. “The majority of voters who turn out to the polls tend to be those who dislike the president 's new policies or are extremely politically engaged. Those who feel just okay about the government aren 't likely to show up at polls” (Rainer Benz).
The last suggestion that could increase voter turnout would be removing the registration process to vote. Younger voters are not familiar with the voting registration process or they think it is too complicated. This unfamiliarity and thought of the process being confusing deters the younger people from registering to vote in the first place. By removing this process, voters can just show up to cast their votes and move on with their day without worrying about this potentially confusing process. These three methods combined could increase the voter turnout for each
That means a number of different things. First, the Party, with such a high number of one voting segment making up its ranks, does not have the capability to understand the viewpoints of minority voters. Secondly, with minorities being a large voting segment, the GOP can no longer win national elections without them. Finally, without the viewpoints of minorities, the GOP is more prone to hateful bigots like Donald Trump harnessing power in its ranks. Because of all those factors, it was easy for Donald Trump to gain power in the GOP and destroy it for years to come.
Delayed and inexperienced decisions such as this can sway the opinion of one who should be voting for the best candidate. When President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, the people who voted him thought that he would be able to stimulate the economy and create jobs. However, once the voters realized that he was unable to run the country as productively as they wanted him to do, his popularity faded. This resulted in Congress and President Bush popularity votes dropping to all-time lows of 38 percent and 28 percent respectively (Milakovich & Gordon, p.8). These numbers resulted in voters believing they should vote democratic as opposed to Republican, in which added to the victory of Barack Obamas election to the
Gives advice and consent to a multitude of the presidential candidates and nominee 's. If a President becomes impeached (questioned for decisions made) the Senators are in charge of running the trial. Senators approve treaties since they have a bigger influence on foreign affairs then the other members of Congress. There members are less likely to be re-elected standing at only a 45% for re-election each term. People believe Senate to be more powerful of the two since it has a smaller party of people to agree.
“A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” - Theodore Roosevelt Do we need uneducated, random, and altogether unconstitutional forced votes clogging up our ballot? Those rallying for compulsory voting boast better representation of the lower class. If compulsory voting is so grand then please do explain why so many countries (the majority even.) do not enforce or even avoid their compulsory voting laws in place. The lower class needs to be better represented, the middle class strengthened, more Americans need to vote, but forcing people to is not the answer.
According to the statistic of We the people, “most members of Congress are elected in landslide elections, and why 98 percent of incumbents are re-elected.” (385). It is actually hard for new candidates to win and replace incumbents because of redistricting. In other words, the results are almost in the desire of legislators, so the voting of citizens looks wasting time and money and does not express their right in the election. The purpose of election to look for the winner with the highest rate of votes, but gerrymandering interrupts that purpose and drives the result into their bias parties. Therefore, the election in America does not prove that it is a democracy country as far as existing gerrymandering.